Perpetual Iranian Nuclear Program Thread

I can hardly think of a stupider thing for Iran to do than to actually send its own operatives into the United States for the purposes of political assassination. There's no doubt they're willing to start some shit, but they probably want to avoid actually forcing the US to respond militarily. They need deniability because neither side really wants to start a war.

Sending your own people--particularly if they are highly trained people (who are both valuable and expensive, and potentially damaging if they are captured)--is always going to be a last resort. It makes much more sense to work through others, even if you have to sacrifice some effectiveness. The possible downside of this attempt is vastly less than the downside of using Iranian personell directly.

No, I characterized them as real terrorists, same as DC. Is the problem here that we're defining any sloppy terrorism as not "real terrorism?" I recommend that we just stop doing that, and instead use a definition that reflects reality.

While I find some of DC's characterizations less than accurate, I don't think your own are any better.

The Quds aren't a ragtag organization trying to make a splash & a name, draw attention to themselves at all. They are the Iranian version of a professional intelligence service, driven by patriotism as much as religious fervor, if not more. They're not trying to make a statement, but rather to promote the interests of their govt. It's hard to see how this could be in those interests.

A rogue operative within the Quds? maybe. A false flag operation with the erstwhile perps being dupes? That too.

There's certainly not enough real evidence to attempt to pin this on the Iranian govt, at all.

++

This is about the equivalent to the US going in to take out Osama using a bunch of old Huey choppers and carrying a platoon of troops pulled out of the infantry school, instead of using SpecOps.

Sending your own people--particularly if they are highly trained people (who are both valuable and expensive, and potentially damaging if they are captured)--is always going to be a last resort. It makes much more sense to work through others, even if you have to sacrifice some effectiveness. The possible downside of this attempt is vastly less than the downside of using Iranian personell directly.

++

Iran is all about the proxy. See Hezbollah, see support for anti-coalition forces in Iraq, etc. Perhaps they could have found a better person to carry out the attack, but they never in a million years would have sent in their own person, it's too direct a connection.

No, I characterized them as real terrorists, same as DC. Is the problem here that we're defining any sloppy terrorism as not "real terrorism?" I recommend that we just stop doing that, and instead use a definition that reflects reality.

While I find some of DC's characterizations less than accurate, I don't think your own are any better.

The Quds aren't a ragtag organization trying to make a splash & a name, draw attention to themselves at all. They are the Iranian version of a professional intelligence service, driven by patriotism as much as religious fervor, if not more. They're not trying to make a statement, but rather to promote the interests of their govt. It's hard to see how this could be in those interests.

A rogue operative within the Quds? maybe. A false flag operation with the erstwhile perps being dupes? That too.

There's certainly not enough real evidence to attempt to pin this on the Iranian govt, at all.

++

This is about the equivalent to the US going in to take out Osama using a bunch of old Huey choppers and carrying a platoon of troops pulled out of the infantry school, instead of using SpecOps.

I believe there is a gap between US military capabilities and those of Iran, particularly with respect to getting our covert forces around the world. At least, I don't recall reading about Iranian Special Forces doing a whole lot continents away from Tehran..

Sending your own people--particularly if they are highly trained people (who are both valuable and expensive, and potentially damaging if they are captured)--is always going to be a last resort. It makes much more sense to work through others, even if you have to sacrifice some effectiveness. The possible downside of this attempt is vastly less than the downside of using Iranian personell directly.

++

Iran is all about the proxy. See Hezbollah, see support for anti-coalition forces in Iraq, etc. Perhaps they could have found a better person to carry out the attack, but they never in a million years would have sent in their own person, it's too direct a connection.

Yeah. They seem to specialize in getting others to do their dirty work for them.

I believe there is a gap between US military capabilities and those of Iran, particularly with respect to getting our covert forces around the world. At least, I don't recall reading about Iranian Special Forces doing a whole lot continents away from Tehran..

But, of course, if the covert forces were good at it you wouldn't read about it either.

I believe there is a gap between US military capabilities and those of Iran, particularly with respect to getting our covert forces around the world. At least, I don't recall reading about Iranian Special Forces doing a whole lot continents away from Tehran..

Most of the research I've been able to do on the Quds force amounts to its involvement in shipping weapons and equipment to Hezbollah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, to the Taliban and Shia forces in Iraq, and to the Syrian government...

Their raison d'etre appears to be more in the form of financing and equipping, maybe training, operations and organizations abroad, rather than conducting operations themselves.

I believe there is a gap between US military capabilities and those of Iran, particularly with respect to getting our covert forces around the world. At least, I don't recall reading about Iranian Special Forces doing a whole lot continents away from Tehran..

But, of course, if the covert forces were good at it you wouldn't read about it either.

I believe there is a gap between US military capabilities and those of Iran, particularly with respect to getting our covert forces around the world. At least, I don't recall reading about Iranian Special Forces doing a whole lot continents away from Tehran..

Did I say there wasn't? My point is and was that having someone as totally inept as this used-car salesman to go to Mexico to hire a drug cartel to go to DC to kill a Saudi, then talk about it, is not in keeping with the Iranian track record. They could (and have done) a lot better)

Iran has a history of conducting assassinations of its political enemies abroad. Shapur Bakhtiar, prime minister when the regime of the last shah was toppled in 1979, was murdered in 1991 while exiled in France. The following year, four Iranian-Kurdish opposition leaders were assassinated in a restaurant in Berlin. While an Iranian and a Lebanese were convicted of the murders, an international arrest warrant was later issued for the then-Iranian intelligence minister, Ali Fallahian, after a court ruled that he had ordered the assassinations.

Attacks carried out in Argentina also have a precedent. Several senior Iranian officials, including Fallahian, have also been implicated by Argentinean judges for a 1994 bomb attack on a Jewish community center in the Argentinean capital, Buenos Aires, which killed 85 people. Iran was also suspected of having a hand in the 1992 bombing of Israel’s embassy in Buenos Aires, in which 29 people were killed. Responsibility for the attack was claimed by the Islamic Jihad organization, said to have links to Iran.

Iran has taken out people in South America. To use this guy, and then go to a drug cartel to actually do it, is way way way out of line for them. Does that mean it isn't true? No. But given the governments track record, it doesn't mean it is true either.

Seems like we have several options:1. It's all true 2. Guy is crazy, and story is mostly made up3. False Flag op4. Internal power play by someone in Iran

Any others? We have to wait for the evidence to be released (if it ever does), but I'd think that #1 is the least likely. Too many holes, inconsistencies, and logical reasons not to do this.

Of course, the "left wing MSM" certainly has had a field day, for the most part repeating all the idiot comments from politicans with minimal analysis.

I believe there is a gap between US military capabilities and those of Iran, particularly with respect to getting our covert forces around the world. At least, I don't recall reading about Iranian Special Forces doing a whole lot continents away from Tehran..

For what it's worth I heard Richard Clarke say, on NPR yesterday, that Iran's special forces were some of the best in the world.

Iran has a history of conducting assassinations of its political enemies abroad. Shapur Bakhtiar, prime minister when the regime of the last shah was toppled in 1979, was murdered in 1991 while exiled in France. The following year, four Iranian-Kurdish opposition leaders were assassinated in a restaurant in Berlin. While an Iranian and a Lebanese were convicted of the murders, an international arrest warrant was later issued for the then-Iranian intelligence minister, Ali Fallahian, after a court ruled that he had ordered the assassinations.

Attacks carried out in Argentina also have a precedent. Several senior Iranian officials, including Fallahian, have also been implicated by Argentinean judges for a 1994 bomb attack on a Jewish community center in the Argentinean capital, Buenos Aires, which killed 85 people. Iran was also suspected of having a hand in the 1992 bombing of Israel’s embassy in Buenos Aires, in which 29 people were killed. Responsibility for the attack was claimed by the Islamic Jihad organization, said to have links to Iran.

Shapur Bakhtiar was murdered in his home by three dudes with knives, not some massive operation.

A group called Islamic Jihad Organization, which has been linked to Iran and possibly Hezbollah,[3] claimed responsibility;[2] their stated motive for the attack was Israel's assassination of Hezbollah Secretary General Sayed Abbas al-Musawi in February,[4] which in turn was in retaliation for the kidnapping and death of missing Israeli servicemen in 1986 and abduction of US Marine and UN peace-keeping officer William R. Higgins in 1988.[5]

Possibly formed in early 1983 and reportedly led by Imad Mughniyah, a former Lebanese Shiite member of Palestinian Fatah’s Force 17, the IJO was not a militia but rather a typical underground urban guerrilla organization. Based at Baalbek in the Beqaa valley, the group alligned 200 Lebanese Shiite militants financed by Iran and trained by the Iranian Revolutionary Guards’ contingent previously sent by Ayatollah Khomeini to fight the June 1982 Israeli invasion of Lebanon.

The bombings in Argentina and Buenos Aires are said to have been carried out by Islamic Jihad Organization and Hezbollah - again, not Iranian forces but rather groups effectively hired by the Iranian government to do its dirty work.

All these links to Iran. Very little work by Iran. Sounds exactly like what they tried to do here in the US, only using a different outfit.

I'm not sure how you can equate that with 'Iran carries out missions over seas.'..

Edit to acknowledge that none of these historical references involve a car salesman..

All these links to Iran. Very little work by Iran. Sounds exactly like what they tried to do here in the US, only using a different outfit.

I'm not sure how you can equate that with 'Iran carries out missions over seas.'..

Edit to acknowledge that none of these historical references involve a car salesman..

No car salesman, and no Drug Cartels either. They used, for lack of a better word, pure Islamic groups. Not a bunch of drug dealers. Again, very out of the ordinary. Drug groups worship money, not Allah.

They had people killed overseas. Sounds like a mission overseas to me. Anyway, with all the travel options, "overseas" doesn't mean squat nowadays anyway. Sending a small group of people somewhere isn't very hard nowadays.

All these links to Iran. Very little work by Iran. Sounds exactly like what they tried to do here in the US, only using a different outfit.

I'm not sure how you can equate that with 'Iran carries out missions over seas.'..

Edit to acknowledge that none of these historical references involve a car salesman..

No car salesman, and no Drug Cartels either. They used, for lack of a better word, pure Islamic groups. Not a bunch of drug dealers. Again, very out of the ordinary. Drug groups worship money, not Allah.

They had people killed overseas. Sounds like a mission overseas to me. Anyway, with all the travel options, "overseas" doesn't mean squat nowadays anyway. Sending a small group of people somewhere isn't very hard nowadays.

Please show me the french equivalent of the PATRIOT Act. Or one in Argentina. The situation in the US is entirely different - not to mention the era we're living in.

Hiring a drug cartel shows at least adaptability. It's much harder to operate in the US, period, let alone for people tied to Islamist terror groups. The plot is different because the logistics are different. So, you're an Iranian hotshot, what's your out-of-the-box solution?

Do you honestly believe that a radical Muslim group would enjoy any success here in the 'States?

No car salesman, and no Drug Cartels either. They used, for lack of a better word, pure Islamic groups. Not a bunch of drug dealers. Again, very out of the ordinary. Drug groups worship money, not Allah.

Iran hires whoever will do the job. If Iran was concerned about ideology, they wouldn't use Sunnis to do their dirty work, they'd keep it to Shia. In the past Iran probably wouldn't have dealt with Sunni radicals like the Taliban, but now the Taliban is just another tool in the box to further their ends. I'm not saying the drug cartel isn't a little weird here, just warning about becoming fixated on Iran being some Islamo-fascist state because they're not.

Please show me the french equivalent of the PATRIOT Act. Or one in Argentina.

huh?

Quote:

Hiring a drug cartel shows at least adaptability. It's much harder to operate in the US, period, let alone for people tied to Islamist terror groups. The plot is different because the logistics are different. So, you're an Iranian hotshot, what's your out-of-the-box solution?

Do you honestly believe that a radical Muslim group would enjoy any success here in the 'States?

You mean like the 9/11 hijackers that lived here for a while?

Anyway, why does a radical group have to have "success"? They plan it wherever they want, maybe make a couple of quick recon runs in DC, and then travel to DC for the bombinb. This isn't like they are trying to live here for years or recruit people. That has nothing to do with anything.

So despite Iran's known history for being very close-handed with using other Islamic terrorist groups, you see nothing unusual with switching to drug lords? With no ideological faith, other then the dollar? Kind of a big switch there, no?

Again, is it possible? sure. Probable? Who knows, but it seems everyone is in a hurry to jump on the bash Iran bandwagon when we really don't know anything. A lot of Iranian experts are all shaking their heads and saying "what?", I think everyone should wait to see the real evidence.

I believe there is a gap between US military capabilities and those of Iran, particularly with respect to getting our covert forces around the world. At least, I don't recall reading about Iranian Special Forces doing a whole lot continents away from Tehran..

For what it's worth I heard Richard Clarke say, on NPR yesterday, that Iran's special forces were some of the best in the world.

I also think I heard – some time ago – that the the Iraqi elite republican guard consisted of "twelve feet tall desert warriors".

On the bigger picture side, it is hard to make sense of this. The reward in case of success seems moderate to low; the target being a fairly non-descript non-royal Saudi functionary. The risks are, obviously, severe - aside from the political dimension (isolation/boxing in) it is a pretty obvious pro forma casus belli.

The cost/benefit equation does not work out, as far as I can see. The risks implicit in the choice of venue far outsize the rewards in completing the job - indeed, given how assymetric they appear the choice of venue must be a point in and of itself: not about slaying a saudi diplomat but slaying a saudi diplomat in Washington DC. But why?

Moving from the theoretical to the realm of experience, I don't see a fit here either. It is not that it is in and of itself alien to the record, the Iranians have their fair share of sloppy jobs in Europe and Africa and so on, but it doesn't fit with the profile of this alleged conspiracy. It would fit, quite well indeed imo, the sometimes haphazard networks involved with procuring western military spares / hardware, as well as the general grey area of arms and smuggling that is plausibly connected, here and there and from time to time, with organisations like the Quds force. You can see some of this in the Iran-Contras papers too. Exactly how this little world operates, I don't know and I doubt anyone does, but there's bits here and there that seem to match roughly with the idea of free agents with many affiliations operating in loose networks where family relations play an important part. So, this used car dealer guy with his cousin in Iran, yeah, if he got nailed for buying what he thought was exhaust nozzle parts for the F-14, sure I'd buy that. Blowing up a crowded restaurant in Washington D.C, using Mexican narc dealers? Not so much. This is not what these guys are supposed to be doing, and I believe they know that quite well so I don't really buy the freelancing argument either.

Iran is -on the other hand- likely, if not responsible for, then at least heavily involved with at least four bombings in the west or against western targets. The two major bomb attacks in Lebanon, and the two in Buenos Aires. But these had a crystal clear rationale and they were apparently expertly performed - we still do not know for sure who did it and if Iran was in fact involved. Look at the political dimension prior to and after these attacks, and compare it to this alleged conspiracy. I don't see a fit. This is way too amateurish, and this on an operation that involves a higher direct risk of blowback than either of the priors (hindsight being what it is, yeah, but still)

So, I don't see much support from the record of known or plausibly suspected Iranians plots to make it work.

Moving further in, the concrete facts (as they are alleged, but ok) does not give us much to go on. There is one item of interest in the complaint, however, and that's the actual recorded phone calls from the guy they got their hands on his supposed uncle. They use 'code' in their conversations, and its of the variety where the target is called 'chevrolet' and so on, you get the idea (and read the complaint, linked in post above). I'll say right away that this is not something I know a lot about. But to me, this kind of 'code' sounds more like something low level criminals would use. I find it hard to square this with the comsec protocols described in, e.g., Baer's The Devil We Know (p. 106):

Quote:

[...] In the eighties, the Revolutionary Guards took their communications off the air, both on the Iraq front and in Lebanon. When they did talk on the telephone or walkie-talkies, they coded their conversations, making them indecipherable to anyone listening in. They also never discussed their plans in the open, either on the phone or in large meetings. Everything important was discussed face-to-face or conveyed orally or by hand-carried messages. [...]

I'm not Baer´s biggest fan (I think his geopolitical view is ... fanciful, to be kind), but when it comes to this kind of minutiae I'll buy what he writes. It can also be independently verified; the secrecy and impenetrability of the Hezbollah is a notorious aspect of that organization, and it is widely suggested in the literature that they learned this from the Quds force.

There is more, like the apparent lack of focus (shopping around targets in front of contractors), the implied sense of urgency, etc, but there's so little available that comments would necessarily be light on substance.

--^*^--

Is it impossible? Few things are. But, again, this does not seem very likely.

Please show me the french equivalent of the PATRIOT Act. Or one in Argentina.

huh?

Quote:

Hiring a drug cartel shows at least adaptability. It's much harder to operate in the US, period, let alone for people tied to Islamist terror groups. The plot is different because the logistics are different. So, you're an Iranian hotshot, what's your out-of-the-box solution?

Do you honestly believe that a radical Muslim group would enjoy any success here in the 'States?

You mean like the 9/11 hijackers that lived here for a while?

You've answered your question without realizing it - though it was already part of my point. The point, before you broke it up into obscurity, is that groups like Hezbollah are going to be much more closely monitored by DHS - while drug cartels are known to have operations on the US/Mexico border and throughout the US. Also, none of the examples that you provided were 1) post-9/11 or 2) in the US. Aside from a couple of lone-wolf types, no one has been able to execute a big operation on US soil. We are living in a different time, because of 9/11.

Quote:

Anyway, why does a radical group have to have "success"? They plan it wherever they want, maybe make a couple of quick recon runs in DC, and then travel to DC for the bombinb. This isn't like they are trying to live here for years or recruit people. That has nothing to do with anything.

Successful = carrying out a terrorist operation, not attaining CEO at Americorp.

Quote:

So despite Iran's known history for being very close-handed with using other Islamic terrorist groups, you see nothing unusual with switching to drug lords? With no ideological faith, other then the dollar? Kind of a big switch there, no?

It's already been pointed out in this thread that Iran has worked with groups ideologically opposed to their interests.

And, yes, it's a switch. It's called adapting. They thought they were working with a group that could be bought. There's not much of a leap here..

Quote:

Again, is it possible? sure. Probable? Who knows, but it seems everyone is in a hurry to jump on the bash Iran bandwagon when we really don't know anything. A lot of Iranian experts are all shaking their heads and saying "what?", I think everyone should wait to see the real evidence.

Considering the fact that you yourself have pointed to terrorist operations funded and directed by Iran, it should not be too difficult to accept that they are willing to carry out yet another operation - this time on US soil. Your point of contention was the drug cartel involvement, and now you're switching it up to say we're just 'bashing Iran.' Guess what, pookie: you don't exactly paint Iran in a positive light when you cite historical references of Iran's terror exploits in order to make a point.

I don't even understand what point you are making, or even if yoiu are trying to make a point, let alone accusing me of me bashing Iran?

I and others have pointed out that their other attacks were very professional and successful. But this is just comical in it's lack of planning and professionalism. Iran has shown they can stage and execute terrorist acts, and do it (for lack of a better term) well. But you think they are adapting by hiring clueless people? So adapting in your mind is moving from good to bad? You claim using a clueless used car salesman as proof of adapting? Really?

I am not bashing Iran. I am saying that it seems likely there is more going on, and this is either not the whole story, or there is a power play or propaganda play going on. Either way, I've said twice we need to see all the evidence and not jump the gun, so again, I don't understand why you think I am bashing Iran.

There is no reason for Iran to kill this minor official.

-Is they really hate him, they could probably kill him while he is in Saudi, or Europe, or traveling somwhere, no real reason to do it here

-The risk/reward to do it in a way to totally piss off the most Americans is crazy, by bombing a DC restaurant. They know they are on a short leash, and this kind of provocation is insane.

-Using a cluess idiot to be the middleman - I'm sure they could find some real agents to infiltrate if they wanted, rather then this loser.

-Using drug cartel to do it. Opens them up to getting found out more, cartels are all about the money, and have no alliance/faith in Iran, and no reason to keep their involvement quiet if found out.

These are all big red flags to what apparently the government is trying to show as an open and shut case. Don't know why you are trying to nitpick minor points and ignore the big picture.

No, I characterized them as real terrorists, same as DC. Is the problem here that we're defining any sloppy terrorism as not "real terrorism?" I recommend that we just stop doing that, and instead use a definition that reflects reality.

While I find some of DC's characterizations less than accurate, I don't think your own are any better.

The Quds aren't a ragtag organization trying to make a splash & a name, draw attention to themselves at all. They are the Iranian version of a professional intelligence service, driven by patriotism as much as religious fervor, if not more. They're not trying to make a statement, but rather to promote the interests of their govt. It's hard to see how this could be in those interests.

A rogue operative within the Quds? maybe. A false flag operation with the erstwhile perps being dupes? That too.

There's certainly not enough real evidence to attempt to pin this on the Iranian govt, at all.

++

This is about the equivalent to the US going in to take out Osama using a bunch of old Huey choppers and carrying a platoon of Pakistani troops pulled out of the Pakistani infantry school, instead of using US SpecOps.

I have to agree with Garfield- the risk vs reward balance just isn't there.

What's in it for the Iranians? What would they gain?

It's easy enough to understand their involvement in Iraq, in Lebanon, even their alleged involvement in Venezuela. This really doesn't add up, at all.

There's severe animosity between Iran and Saudi Arabia. Iran wants to be the regional power in the Middle East, and the Saudis work their geriatric asses off to prevent that from happening (with a healthy dose of dough from the good old US of A). By way of example, the Saudis funnel a great deal of money into Lebanon as well.

I have to agree with Garfield- the risk vs reward balance just isn't there.

What's in it for the Iranians? What would they gain?

It's easy enough to understand their involvement in Iraq, in Lebanon, even their alleged involvement in Venezuela. This really doesn't add up, at all.

There's severe animosity between Iran and Saudi Arabia. Iran wants to be the regional power in the Middle East, and the Saudis work their geriatric asses off to prevent that from happening (with a healthy dose of dough from the good old US of A). By way of example, the Saudis funnel a great deal of money into Lebanon as well.

I'm surprised at the audacity, but not the target.

Oh, please.

The Iranians have a winning hand wrt dominance in the region. They have 3X the population of KSA, for starters, and years of involuntary isolation have provided them with a full spectrum economy. They also have huge natural resources beyond oil. Their sense of self sufficiency is rooted in reality, and their sense of national pride, of patriotism, transcends the usual tribalism of much of the rest of the region.

Their govt is a democracy of sorts, and has the ability to evolve more in that direction, too. The demonstrations in the wake of their last election shows that. They see themselves as a free people, even if their govt isn't what they want it to be entirely. Their influence in Iraq, both north and south, is enormous, and growing, based on trade & shared goals. When it's all said & done, it seems likely that they'll be the biggest winners from the ousting of Saddam's govt.

Compare that to the Saudis across the gulf, who have to engage in all sorts of religious indoctrination and oppression to maintain the monarchy, and also have to engage in a great deal of western help to achieve any sort of modernization at all. Socially, they're nearly as repressed as N Korea, just in a different way. There's some of that in Iran, no doubt, but it's not the seamless sort of stupidity that demands school girls be sent back into a burning building because they had no head scarves. In Iran, women get to vote & hold positions of power. In KSA, they can't even drive, and must be accompanied by a male relative out in public.

On topic, it's easy to ascribe irrationality to the Iranians- not because they've really demonstrated any in the past, but rather because they're painted that way in our media & by our govt. Culturally & economically, they beat the Saudis w/o lifting a finger, and that difference will only get stronger over time. They don't need to kill any Saudis to come out on top, because the Saudis are killing themselves & can't find a way to stop.

Their sense of self sufficiency is rooted in reality, and their sense of national pride, of patriotism, transcends the usual tribalism of much of the rest of the region.

Of every Iranian I've ever met, and based on reading a variety of first-hand accounts from in Iran by Western journalists and Iranians themselves, I presume this to be true of the majority living in Iran. However, given thirty years of evidence, I cannot see this as true of their present reactionary, theocratic, hydra-headed government. The elections in 2009 made a mockery of any sense of democracy Iran might have had, and the demonstrations, followed by a brutal, but successful, crackdown demonstrates the above dichotomy between people and government, IMHO. I don't see the Iranian system "evolving" while Khamenei is in power.

Saudi Arabia and Iran are different forms of theocracy (though I wouldn't go so far as to compare either to North Korea, probably the most theocratic state in the world).

But that's neither here nor there–I'm only speculating, as we all are. As I said, for a state action, the audacity surprises me, but the evidence and real details we have amount to a gullible Iranian agent who tried to recruit an informant. I don't distrust the story as presented per se, but I don't see Khamenei and the Guardian Council sitting in a dudgeon deciding that "Yes... we shall assassinate the Saudi Ambassador to Washington!" though two countries with warmer relations than Iran and Saudi Arabia have done far worse to each other. The earlier suggestion of internal power struggles in Iran sounds far, far more likely to me, if anything is. It could also simply be an exercise in plausibility of such an action by the Quds force, and of cooperation with the cartels. Regardless, my feeling is that this is more low-level and minor than it's being portrayed.

U.S. and Saudi officials believe Iranian operatives were behind the May 16 murder of a Saudi diplomat in Karachi, Pakistan — adding more evidence that Tehran has engaged in high-risk covert actions beyond the allegations of a Washington assassination plot made in a Justice Department indictment Tuesday.

I think they'd have to be irrational to engage in the assassination plot as outlined by the DoJ.

The Ignatius piece? Straight up yellow journalism, with a throw-away disclaimer. An anonymous Saudi source claims that Paki officials told him that the drive-by killer of a Saudi embassy guard (not a diplomat) in Karachi was a member of a Pakistani Shia dissident group and that they linked him to a Quds guy in Beirut- obviously, the Iranian govt is the one to blame. Musta been ordered by the Ayatollah himself!

Raw intelligence? Hardly. Raw sewage presented as a palatable commodity is more like it.

Could I interest you in a vast store of WMD's buried in the Bekaa valley?

If the Iranians needed a motive to assassinate Saudi Arabia’s ambassador to the United States they may have found it in a diplomatic cable leaked earlier this year by WikiLeaks.

In the April 20, 2008 cable, Ambassador Adel al-Jubeir relayed to America’s No. 3 diplomat in Riyadh that the Saudi king wanted the U.S. to attack Iran’s nuclear program. “He told you to cut off the head of the snake,” the cable quotes al-Jubeir as saying.

That the Saudis want Iran's nuclear program stopped isn't news, and this sounds far more like another attempt to play up the dangers of leaked information. That article does have one bit I hadn't read before, though:

Quote:

U.S. officials tell The Daily Beast that they knew the Quds Force was behind the plot when the money was transferred in part because the Treasury had monitored the overseas account and identified it long before as an account used by the Iranian organization for supporting operations overseas. “We believe the information is ironclad,” one U.S. intelligence official told The Daily Beast.

If true, it still doesn't prove anything regarding how organized or high-up planning actually was.

I think they'd have to be irrational to engage in the assassination plot as outlined by the DoJ.

As outlined, it doesn't look very "plot"-like. I think vastly more information is needed before concluding either way. I find it hard to believe Iran would attempt something like this, but I also don't quite understand the instant distrust of the DoJ's information.

I doubt it will cause a substantial shift in bilateral policy between the US and Iran or Saudi Arabia and Iran, which really can't get much more antagonistic in either case. Plenty of opportunities for pontification, however, which I'm sure the Obama Administration and Iranian government will take full advantage of. But that it presents those opportunities don't in themselves discredit the scan evidence we've been presented so far.

I agree on the Ignatius piece. My posting it does not amount to endorsement, only an attempt to expand the discussion.

I don't even understand what point you are making, or even if yoiu are trying to make a point, let alone accusing me of me bashing Iran?

Okay, then let me back up, starting with a question: What do you mean with this?

Quote:

Who knows, but it seems everyone is in a hurry to jump on the bash Iran bandwagon when we really don't know anything.

I took it to mean that everyone is blaming Iran for this plot. Did you mean something different? If yes, you can skip this next part. If not:

You cited examples of Iranian terror plots, so I don't see how it could be a stretch to believe that Iran would attempt one in the US. It's simply a different venue for them.

Oddly enough, when I asked for examples of Iran carrying out covert military actions around the world, you provided examples of Iran hiring others to do their work.

Quote:

I and others have pointed out that their other attacks were very professional and successful. But this is just comical in it's lack of planning and professionalism. Iran has shown they can stage and execute terrorist acts, and do it (for lack of a better term) well. But you think they are adapting by hiring clueless people? So adapting in your mind is moving from good to bad? You claim using a clueless used car salesman as proof of adapting? Really?

You've also pointed out that we don't know all the facts. Do we really know that he is just a clueless car salesman, or is that the portrait we're painting to cast doubt on the official story? You mentioned 9/11, so tell me: Did the 9/11 hijackers make a living as terrorists? The answer is, of course, no - they had day jobs. So I don't see how your characterization of the man can be treated as evidence of anything, except to say that, just like with every other terrorist plot ever carried out, he had a job unrelated to blowing people up. How is this a leap of logic?

Quote:

I am not bashing Iran. I am saying that it seems likely there is more going on, and this is either not the whole story, or there is a power play or propaganda play going on. Either way, I've said twice we need to see all the evidence and not jump the gun, so again, I don't understand why you think I am bashing Iran.

I do apologize if I've inadvertently mischaracterized your position. I do believe that, by "bashing Iran," you mean "accusing them of terrorist activities." If not, please clarify. If so, how do you reconcile their historically evidenced participation in terrorist activities with the characterization of those who believe the official story as "bashing Iran?"

Quote:

There is no reason for Iran to kill this minor official.

-Is they really hate him, they could probably kill him while he is in Saudi, or Europe, or traveling somwhere, no real reason to do it here

-The risk/reward to do it in a way to totally piss off the most Americans is crazy, by bombing a DC restaurant. They know they are on a short leash, and this kind of provocation is insane.

This is covered by other posters, and I won't pretend to understand Iran's motivations. Frankly, I don't really understand the motivations of AQ, either, but that does not cause me to be skeptical of the official story of 9/11.

Quote:

-Using a cluess idiot to be the middleman - I'm sure they could find some real agents to infiltrate if they wanted, rather then this loser.

I would love to see proof that all the man ever did in his life was sell used cars.

Quote:

-Using drug cartel to do it. Opens them up to getting found out more, cartels are all about the money, and have no alliance/faith in Iran, and no reason to keep their involvement quiet if found out.

Again, there's not exactly a Hezbollah presence here - and I don't think a startup would last very long on US soil.

Mexican drug cartels can be seen as useful for a number of reasons:

1. They already operate in the US. There are heavily armed Mexican-cartel-run pot plantations in our national forrests. They smuggle people across the border. There have been reports of cartel-related murders in US cities. Because of all this, they can be seen as knowing the lay of the land.

2. They don't value human life. This is extraordinarily useful, since you don't have to do much to convince them to kill civilians - you just show them the money.

3. They have a track record of keeping quiet, going so far as killing police to silence them. They deliver messages in body count, not in words. It's not hard to see how one might see them as able to keep their mouths shut.

Quote:

These are all big red flags to what apparently the government is trying to show as an open and shut case. Don't know why you are trying to nitpick minor points and ignore the big picture.

In over 30 years, nothing bad has happened to anyone involved in "incidents". American hostages, British sailors, lost hikers... they were all were set free just like magic. Or- like an intelligence agency was running the show, not a maniacal dictator.

I wouldn't doubt if they built a mock nuclear facility only to bomb it, but keep in mind it's only an act.

In over 30 years, nothing bad has happened to anyone involved in "incidents"

Eagle Claw? They did that to themselves, but many did die. Plus, the whole BP thing didn't continue with the post-revolution government, so why would they replace the Shah? Plus, weapons from Iran killing Coalition forces in Iraq, and Israelis in and around Israel.

Plus, the whole BP thing didn't continue with the post-revolution government, so why would they replace the Shah? Plus, weapons from Iran killing Coalition forces in Iraq, and Israelis in and around Israel.

Not saying they have total control, especially not in the countryside. But that's the whole point of seizing the top - to slowly modernize a backward society.

There are other dictators who are CIA/NATO directed. Their names are obvious, and I assume there are non-obvious ones too.